Was the real Jewish Garden of Eden located in Jerusalem?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Was the real Jewish Garden of Eden located in Jerusalem?

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou a biblical scholar thinks so.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kwlx6 (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kwlx6)

When I add in the research being done by archeologist Israel Finkelstein showing what may be the true picture of the ancient Israelites, I too begin to think that the Jewish Eden was in Jerusalem. The God /King would have been from the Levi tribe and a Levi priest who would have been the head of the Jewish Divine Council.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13mwrw_the-bible-unearthed-1-the-patriarchs_webcam (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13mwrw_the-bible-unearthed-1-the-patriarchs_webcam)

I think that the key is the river Gihon that ties it all together.

What do you think?
Was Eden in Jerusalem and did they have a God/King in charge?


Were all of our Gods and Kings always humans?


Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

Too Long... Didn't Watch.

The generally accepted location of EDEN has always been within the boundaries of the Fertile Crescent. Tabriz in Modern day Iran is one locations as well as the current location of the now dry Wadi Batin River system and the Katun River (Gihon in the Bible).

The Wadi Batin is on the Arabian Peninsula and the Gihon/Katun is in Iran.

All evidence points to the Fertile Crescent.... Not Israel.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Too Long... Didn't Watch.

The generally accepted location of EDEN has always been within the boundaries of the Fertile Crescent. Tabriz in Modern day Iran is one locations as well as the current location of the now dry Wadi Batin River system and the Katun River (Gihon in the Bible).

The Wadi Batin is on the Arabian Peninsula and the Gihon/Katun is in Iran.

All evidence points to the Fertile Crescent.... Not Israel.

The Gihon river pops out in Jerusalem but I understand that if you are not into the archeology and broader history of the religions and political systems in the area, you will not likely think the way these two scholars and I begin to think.

I see Eden as a mytholigized Temple Garden while literalists will go by what the bible tells you of a place outside of a Temple.

I begin to think that all the city states had their Gardens of Delight or Gardens of Eden within their Temple or palace systems.

Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

The Gihon river pops out in Jerusalem but I understand that if you are not into the archeology and broader history of the religions and political systems in the area, you will not likely think the way these two scholars and I begin to think.

I see Eden as a mytholigized Temple Garden while literalists will go by what the bible tells you of a place outside of a Temple.

I begin to think that all the city states had their Gardens of Delight or Gardens of Eden within their Temple or palace systems.

Regards
DL

see... you are not capable of a legitimate discussion. You just want to push your own agenda.

I replied simply to show you will offer nothing but conjecture, Personal opinion and your own anti-religious rhetoric.

You rose to the bait.... and revealed that to be true...

You are not worth replying to.

goodbye

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

see... you are not capable of a legitimate discussion. You just want to push your own agenda.

I replied simply to show you will offer nothing but conjecture, Personal opinion and your own anti-religious rhetoric.

You rose to the bait.... and revealed that to be true...

You are not worth replying to.

goodbye

You are not worth replying to.

We compared personal opinions and found no discussion points and that upset you.

Should I just fall down and ignore my agenda for yours when you did not even follow the links?

Go away child. You got the cheap shot you wanted.

Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

You are not worth replying to.

We compared personal opinions and found no discussion points and that upset you.

Should I just fall down and ignore my agenda for yours when you did not even follow the links?

Go away child. You got the cheap shot you wanted.

Regards
DL

You offer stylized personal (Anti) religious rhetoric as a basis for your theory...

and I quote you...

I see Eden as a mytholigized (Sic) Temple Garden while literalists(Sic) will go by what the bible tells you of a place outside of a Temple.

I begin to think that all the city states had their Gardens of Delight or Gardens of Eden within their Temple or palace systems.

(end Quote)


That is how you troll... you post a one hour long video that nobody will watch because we have other thing to do. You then make broad based statements on political systems and temple and palace complexes that have nothing to do with scientific fact. They are YOUR personal opinions, nothing more.

You compared nothing.. You tried to troll me with your usual garbage and got caught. You are not a scholar... you're just an internet troll with an agenda and a playbook that you use to take swipes at the beliefs of others. Fact is, you're not even a good troll. You're actually a very poor one.

Your agenda is to disrupt. and you got all butt hurt when you got caught in our own rhetorical crap.

Go away little man... You're no scholar, you're not even a good troll... all you are is an atheist with an anti religious ax to grind and you're not even good at that.

when you really want to discuss something and not push your crap down peoples throats... come back to the table.

[avatar4321]

Absent revelation from God I see no way anyone could know. Noah could have started from anywhere before the flood. We just know he ended up in the middle east.

And we don't even know if he was anywhere near where Eden was when the flood started.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Absent revelation from God I see no way anyone could know. Noah could have started from anywhere before the flood. We just know he ended up in the middle east.

And we don't even know if he was anywhere near where Eden was when the flood started.


Care to discuss moral options?


God can either kill or cure those he believes evil.

Curing would be the high moral ground would it not?

If so, why did God take the low moral ground and kill?

If you had a sick child, would you kill it or would you cure it if you had both options?

Regards
DL

[avatar4321]

He sacrificed Himself to "cure" mankind. Because of Him we are immortal. Have you ever actually studied the scriptures?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

He sacrificed Himself to "cure" mankind.

Was he not curing us from a condition that he himself imposed on us?

The Triune God condemned us and then stupidly wants us to believe that a God who cannot die dies for us to reverse his own condemnation.

How can an intelligent moral person believe such a story?

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?



In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.


Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?



For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.



Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.



Do you agree?



Regards
DL